Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
How Going Against Trump Affected Erick Erickson
Erick Erickson has been called one of the most powerful conservatives in America. He hosts the radio show “Atlanta’s Evening News with Erick Erickson” on WSB-AM and has guest hosted “The Rush Limbaugh Show.” Erick previously served as the editor-in-chief and CEO of the conservative political blog RedState, now runs the conservative website The Resurgent, and is a political contributor for CNN and Fox News. He took a stand against Donald Trump, even disinviting him to a Red State candidate forum. He speaks frankly about receiving threats during the 2016 election while battling serious family health issues, the alt-right, and political correctness. Erick, who is currently completing his Master’s of Divinity, analyzes cultural conservatism and the “church wing” of the Republican party and whether it had an impact in 2016. Where is he now on Trump? Watch to learn what’s changed. (Filmed aboard the 2016 Post Election Weekly Standard Cruise.)
.
Published in General
Erickson went off the rails, but not as badly as Ben #ImWithHer Howe did.
“Trump is the ultimate legacy of Barack Obama.”
Well said.
Wonderful interview. Thank you.
It’s “affected”, not “effected”.
Great interview, Dave. I came away really liking him. He and I held and hold similar views about Trump from beginning to end. I think the attacks on him were terrible, even worse with the illnesses he and his wife had to cope with. I did raise my eyebrows a bit when he said that at least he could point to Obama as a role model for the way he was taking care of his kids. Given how Trumps kids appear to have turned out, that’s one thing he may have done well. I hope Erick’s family medical issues resolve for the best.
He always struck me as a nice midwesterner and an intelligent guy, but it’s difficult to empathize with him. At a certain point these guys were just SO wrong about Trumps chances, they simply lose credibility.
He relied on the same polls as everyone else. They’ve worked in the past. I think the only people who were sure Trump was going to win were either wishful thinkers or the very few people who studied the data in very great detail. Or people who were seers.
Nice interview. Like many other pundits in his shoes I’m wondering how his struggle for relevancy will go.
Thanks Susan. The guy is a mensch. Re: Obama as a role model, I don’t disagree with Erick on this. Much of the urban problems we see stems for fatherless homes. As much as I disagree with Obama’s policies, he demonstrates to men how to be a Father. This is a good thing. Agreed Trump has raised fine children himself, but I don’t think Erick was comparing the parenting skills between Obama and Trump.
Great interview! I have a lot of respect for Erick and the stand that he took. Of course, I agreed with him about Trump, so you know…
My recollection was that Erickson said he would use Obama as a role model but not Trump. I’m just saying if the parenting was the criteria, it wasn’t the best choice.
I never considered myself a seer, but by the time I started supporting him (Indiana primary), I truly believed he was the only Republican candidate who could defeat Hillary. Now perhaps I was wrong about that–maybe another candidate could have defeated her, but I felt Trump to be the “poor man’s billionaire”. Only he could turn the working class people away from the Dems, who had failed them, Any other Republican would have been cast with the same slogans that the Dems always use and would have, like Romney, shriveled under the assault.
As far as Eric Erikson, well he sounds very mild now, but I sure seem to remember a vicious never guy who through the entire election, even after nominated, was a guy I thought would have voted for Hillary. Did he ever say which way he finally voted? Maybe I missed that. I certainly wish he and his wife a rapid recovery.
Well, that’s the problem. Many thought Trump could win. I thought so, and the only thing that stopped me from being near-certain was my fear that my thoughts were infected by hope. I saw the yard signs in Pennsylvania and in Michigan. I saw the massive enthusiastic rallies on YouTube. I knew that black folk were not that enthusiastic about Hillary. I knew that Trump was energizing voters who had not voted in the last few elections. I knew Trump was resonating with working class Democrats. I knew the media was in a bubble. I saw that the polls were relying on 2012 demographic turnout, which is patently absurd in this very different election, and the one that weren’t had Trump very close, if not winning.
Nope, these folks were, and remain, out of touch. I like my pundits to look past what their media colleagues present. Many of them still don’t understand Trump or the phenomenon he tapped into.
I think this was true for a lot of people. How do we know when hope gets in the way of reality? I would also add (not meaning you, Franco) that hindsight can be 20-20. I think there are those now who say they knew, but didn’t really look past the usual indicators. It doesn’t make them anything, in my mind’s eye, but humbled after the fact.
Mr Erikson made it personal in his attacks. He despised a man he did not know who was unlike him. He always was a touch more messianic in his presentation than I cared for, but he went way out of bounds in the run up to the election.
Any price he is paying is for his own excesses. I used to listen to him, I no longer will.
Is there a reason we cannot get more folks from the new administration for Ricochet? The KellyAnne Conway one was great listening.
It is like watching a championship game here and all we get are interviews from the losing team.
Who thinks this? I like him, but I’ve never thought of him as “powerful”.
TKC, the purpose for this series of 12 interviews is the (maybe idealistic) hope ALL Conservatives can come together after many ripped each other apart. There were no innocents on either side. If those who cheerleaded Trump from the beginning insist on castigating other Conservatives who had legitimate reservations, then the Conservative movement will meet the same demise currently befallen on the Democrats.
The only losing team after November 8th were Democrats.
The Atlantic Magazine which somehow stuck.
I don’t know where “the beginning” starts, but for me it started once he was nominated. After that, the neverTrumpers will remain for me questionable conservatives at the very least. It’s not a single movement anymore. The nevers threw down the gauntlet. Their reservations were mostly built on paranoia and class loathing. I have no problem with individual voters whomever they voted for, we are talking pundits here who publicly attacked Trump when it was a binary choice. Romney was quoted in Hillary attack ads fer godsakes!
The old Republican Party has already met its demise. Some just don’t know it yet.
The mag that just hired that pathetic creature who tweeted that Trump must be f***ing his daughter? That magazine?
Well, most of them are busy, and a couple of agencies are holding out making their job more difficult. Just saying’. Oh, and they have to deal with all these crazies trying to hijack the EC.
The fact remains that Erick Erickson has been called one of the most powerful conservatives in America, so I don’t understand your point. How does a silly tweet negate the existence of a quote?
If you insist on rehabilitation of people like Erikson while ignoring the story of the people who are moving forward, it is you who are staying behind, castigating from the side that decided to stay home and throw rocks.
Many of us want to move forward, but I have no energy to drag along those who refused to fight and cheer for the other side. I have simply no time for them.
Interview someone doing something in a positive way. Obsessing with rebuilding reputations lost by lack of perspective and self control is of little interest.
Some of us were innocent, in thinking if we chose a candidate and they won the nomination that our party would support that person as it had in the past. Your attempt at equivalence is poorly played. One side played by the rules and the other did not. Peddle your ‘both sides were guilty’ claptrap to the leftists. The GOP had a candidate and the folks you promote for exoneration offered us Hillary, Johnson and McMullin.
Of the 12 people interviewed for this series, most were directly associated with the Weekly Standard. To a one, they were very happy that Hillary lost, and my impression was that their dislike of Trump the candidate was driven not only by his presumed unfitness for office, but also by the assumption that he could not beat Hillary. They expressed honest differences during the election, as we all did. Trump proved he could win, which took care of about half of the objection to him. Now, as he chooses who to surround himself with, the folks at the Weekly Standard have openly lauded his choices. What more does anyone want? As I have said before, the left should be so lucky to have such measured criticism within its ranks.
I get a chill every time I hear enthusiasm for government “moving forward”.
First, thank you for a fine, personal set of interviews.
Second, an objection. Why choose the verb “cheerleaded” Dave? And in the sentence following your expressed wish to “come together”?
Sorry, but this condescending attitude of anti-Trumpers is still very off-putting. I wasn’t an early Trump supporter, but I certainly wouldn’t characterize their early support as cheerleading.
Maybe we can concede early Trump supporters were perceptive, politically attuned and understood that Trump, warts and all, was the candidate to dismantle the Clinton machine?
Your impression seems to be a bit forgetful of the comments that were made. Unfitness for office was the least of the canards offered by this crew.
For them to demand re-instatement without any tangible action on their part is beyond hubris, it shows a lack of judgement that borders on the pathological.
It depends, doesn’t it? Most don’t care what the NTs do now, I suspect. Some are interested in their expulsion from the right; some would be content with a little public humiliation. But most regard them as irrelevant, unless they do something helpful.
This is as good as could be expected for the good of the party, conservativism, and America. One could not expect more at this point and it’s a tough and admirable evolution for them.
I regard them as my friends and I’m fine with whatever they do beyond being horrifyingly unhelpful.
Then you must love the concept of “America moving backward.”
Government is not some optional accessory to be argued over by the idle literati, it is the mechanism where the citizens act as a nation state. It has been running quite poorly with the help of many progressive and conservative elites with very poor ideas and experience.